S. It has been held that a trustee of money is not justified in investing the same in rail way securities, it being of too precarious a character. 10 Eng. L. & Eq. 123 ; 21 N. H. 852. In Ellis vs. Eden, 30 Land. Law Times, 601, it was held that "stoek in the foreign funds" included the American state stocks of Virginia, Massachusetts, etc., but not Bos ton watemerip or bonds of the Pennsylvania Railway.
Railway bonds, with coupons attached made payable to bearer, pass by delivery, the same as bills of exchange or bank-bills, and have thus become a quasi-currency. 1 Stockt. Ch. N. J. 667 ; 13 N. Y. 599. See, also, 11 Paige, Ch. N. Y. 634 ; 2 Hill, N. Y. 159; 3 Barnew. & C. 45; 4 Barnew. & Ald. 1; 7 Bingh. 284 ; 27 Pentt. St. 413 ; Red field, Railw. 239.
Constitutional questions. These have refer ence chiefly to the inviolability of charter rights under the United States constitution, and rest main', upon the doctrines and prin ciples of the leading case of Dartmouth Col lege vs. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518. The provision in the United States constitution referred to is that prohibiting the several states from passing "any law impairing the obligation of contracts." A corporate charter is regarded as a legis. lative grant of certain franchises and im munities involving pecuniary value, and, con sequently, not revocable, or subject to legisla tive control in any other sense than as all rights of property are liable to be affected by general legislation. 4 Wheat. 518 ; 27 Vt. 140 ; Redfield, Railw. .g 231.
The essential franchise of a private cor poration, being private property, cannot be taken for public use without adequate com pensation. 15 Vt. 745; 16 id. 476 ; 27 id. 140 ; 6 How. 507.
9. But to be thus inviolable it is essential tbat the franchises in question shall be such as are indispensable to the existence and just operation of the corporation, or else that they be expressly secured to the corporation in its charter. 11 Pet. 420.
These exclusive grants are to be strictly construed in favor of tbe corporation, and liberally expounded in favor of public rights and linterests. Opinion of Taney, Ch. J., in 11 Pet. 420 ; 13 How. 71 ; 1 La. Ann. 253.
It makes no difference in regard to the rights of the corporation that it may have received large grants of land or other property from the state or sovereignty conferring the charter. Unless the stock is owned by the state, or the appointment and control of the principal officers are retained by the state, so as to create it a public corporation, its essen tial franchises are inviolable to the same ex tent as other private rights of a pecuniary character, and its functions are equally inde pendent of legislative control as are those of any natural person. 14 Miss. 599 ; 6 Penn. St. 86 ; 13 id. 133 ; 13 Ired. No. C. 75 ; 9 Mo. 507 ; 27 Miss. 517 ; 13 B. Moor. Ky. 1 ; 9 Wend. N. Y. 351 ; 4 Barb. N. Y. 64. See, also, the late cases, in the United States su preme court, maintaining the same principle. 18 How. 331, 380, 384 ; Redfield, Railw. 232.
The water which natu rally falls from the clouds.
2. No one has a right to build his house so as to cause the rain-water to fall over his neighbor's land, 1 Rolle, Abr. 107 ; 2 id. 565 ; 2 Leon. 94; 1 Strange, 643 ; Fortescue, 212 ; Bacon, Abr. Action on the Case (F); 5 Coke, 101 ; 1 Comyns, Dig. Action on the Case for a Nuisance (A), unless he has ac quired a right by a grant or prescription.
3. When the laud remains in a state of nature, says a learned writer, and by the natural descent the rain-water would de scend from the superior estate over the lower, the latter is necessarily subject to receive such water. 1 Lois des Batimens, 15, 16. See 2 Rolle, 140; Dig. 39. 3; 2 Bouvier. Inst. n. 1608.